North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]
While it is probably impossible to define a "full routing table" at any particular point in time. It IS possible to evaluate/understand whether someone is purposely, or accidentally, not carrying the routes that they should in order to "complete" the Internet. If it appears the routes are not being carried as a result of market wants/ desires then there may be culpability."access the Internet", could it be more clear?No, because there is no legal defintion of "the Internet."
It would have been really fun to see the results of L3 and Cogent with this HR draft applied. Since the draft comes close to mandating interconnect what do they do when two providers have a dispute? I don't think we will see congress mandated "free peering" so I am curious if anyone has thought private peering and settlement through as it relates to this bill.
We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself very well to market forces. In many places FFTH and/or DSL from a single carrier are becoming the only options. I would not count a 500ms satellite hop as an option <grin>.Gee, it appears the marketplace is working. Why aren't you hiring lawyersHave you tried to buy an HDTV recently? Would that really be an improvement?I think HDTV hardware is quite clear. I love my HDTV. But once again, it's the service providers who are the problem. My provider (who I will let be nameless for now) doesn't keep any cable cards locally, and has to send off to the national HDTV center to get one. They lock down their set top box to a single resolution, which is not the resolution of my TV, nor the resolution of the local broadcasters. They don't carry anything but the three local networks in HD. They are also losing my business as we type to another provider who offers a better service.
Is there going to be a similar association or government agency involvedAgree whole heartedly. ISPs can not be responsible beyond their network. Within their networks ISPs/NSPs can be responsible for ensuring the most complete routing table possible. ISPs/NSPs can also be responsible for ensuring that unfettered access to the Internet is available to all broadband users (no port blocking in either direction).
Quality of service is interesting but it seems like it is not quite the bugaboo that people might think. If you want to offer "special" services it appears there are provisions with the draft that allow for this. I would suggest that special services on one user should not have impact on another users service and that both users should receive equivalent bandwidth.
Interestingly enough, I wonder if this sort of draft is going to actually slow down consolidation onto IP? Maybe not in VoIP but perhaps in TV? This sort of requirement can make video providers nervous about protecting their ability to profit. I suppose SBC and it's IPTV would be the poster child for this.
I would also suggest that careful thought about pricing needs to occur. It would be pretty easy to charge "$1" more for a service that could effectively nullify competition. So, you are told it will cost you $50 dollars a month for basic broadband service and, for "$1" more you get all the long distance you can eat. That would put the screws to every VoIP provider out there. Note that I am not saying we need gov't pricing schedules.
Note: I responded to some of the other email I saw fly by in this message. So, if I rehash my apologies.